Republican members of Congress plan a host of questions for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her long-awaited testimony on Wednesday about the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Questions are expected to range from a security vacuum in Northern Africa to new cables suggesting that Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the September 11 assault, once proposed moving the compound to a more secure location adjacent the CIA Annex, sources tell CNN.

Congressional staffers have been shown new State Department e-mails and cables indicating that in November 2011, Stevens, concerned about the safety of the compound in Benghazi, proposed two options to the State Department, sources tell CNN. The first involved moving the compound back into a hotel. The second would move the compound to an unoccupied villa adjacent the CIA annex. CIA officials agreed with U.S. diplomatic personnel on the ground that the latter option would be safer. But the State Department rejected the idea.

The presence on the House Foreign Relations Committee of several new members and on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of at least two possible GOP presidential hopefuls – Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky – has some State Department officials anticipating aggressive questions about whether the presence of Islamic extremists in Mali and Algeria were in any way related to past decisions by the Obama administration to keep U.S. combat troops out of Libya.

Most questions are expected to re-visit well-worn lines of inquiry about why requests by officials on the ground in Libya for additional security were not heeded, and faulty talking points about whether an anti-Islam video played a role in the attack that also killed three other Americans.

Other questions could involve the State Department response to the terrorist bombing of the U.S. compound in Benghazi that had occurred the previous June.

Lawmakers may also be interested in Clinton's precise whereabouts on the night of the September attack, her personal involvement in administration actions that night as well as efforts to locate Stevens, who went missing before he died.

Clinton will testify for 90 minutes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the morning and 90 minutes before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the afternoon.

Senior officials tell CNN that Clinton will not shy away from any tough questions and intends to assert responsibility for weak security at U.S. diplomatic posts, something that State Department is urgently addressing, senior officials tell CNN.

It's a position Clinton took soon after the September attack, telling CNN in an interview last October that she was ultimately responsible for security.

"I'm in charge of the State Department, 60,000 plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president certainly wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals," Clinton said in the interview.

An independent investigation of the incident absolved Clinton of blame for weak security. The probe, instead, placed responsibility in the Benghazi case on working level officials in the offices of Diplomatic Security and Near East Affairs.

The findings of the Accountability Review Board prompted the resignation of the top diplomatic security official. Others have been fired or reassigned.

There have been more than 30 hearings and closed door briefings on Benghazi with State Department officials present.

Her scheduled appearance in December was postponed after she fell ill and then suffered a concussion and a blood clot in December.

Responding to accusations from her harshest critics that Clinton has been avoiding Congress, the officials noted that she was the first top official to brief the full Senate in closed session on September 20.

The meeting was held at her suggestion and she answered any and all questions for more than two hours, the officials said.

Expect the same direct approach on Wednesday.

"She's going to answer every question asked of her," one senior official said.

"She gets it," the official said of the former senator from New York. "She served up there for eight years and has sat on both sides of the dais. She knows they have a role to play, not just in figuring out what happened but they need to be partners in providing security for our diplomats."

The official noted that since Congress holds the purse strings for security budgets, they have been historically instrumental in helping secure resources for embassy and diplomat security.

Despite the heated politics surrounding Benghazi ahead of the election, committee staffers say they expected the tone of the hearings to be civil, saying that "even Republicans on both committees generally like and respect her."

Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and John Barasso of Wyoming both told CNN that they will have detailed questions about what went wrong in Benghazi but expect the overall tone of the hearing to be very respectful.

Democrats privately say they don't expect Republicans to be overly adversarial because they think Republicans are chagrined by being linked, fairly or unfairly, to the conspiracy theory that Clinton faked her illness to get out of testifying.

Clinton is expected to detail what the State Department has done to implement 29 recommendations from the investigation by the review board in addition to a few of her own.

But officials note that she didn't wait for the review board report before appointing a State Department team to work on tightening security.
Joint teams of military special forces and diplomatic security threat analysts were sent to more than a dozen high-risk posts. A senior official was appointed to focus solely on high threat posts.

President Barack Obama ordered a review of security at all diplomatic outposts in the wake of the attack.

But despite the renewed focus on security, Clinton will stress that U.S. diplomats still need to operate in high threat environments.

"The reason that hasn't changed is that these places have a direct and vital national interest" to the United States, one official said.

Clinton also is likely to face questions about the storming of the natural gas facility last week in Algeria during which militants seized dozens of hostages. Three Americans lost their lives.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is believed to have had a hand in the attack. Clinton also will likely face questions about the battle against extremists in neighboring Mali.

Republicans may raise the issue of Obama's suggestion that al Qaeda was on the run following the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011.

"Clearly Benghazi and now Algeria show that is not the case," one House staffer said. "I would expect questions asking what the U.S. is going to do now."

soundoff(425 Responses)

beforus

Clinton right away starts to say it was not political. What a liar she is. Right before the elections yeah she says she is taking responsibility for it well 4 Americans are dead and she should just resign from politics.

the BLIND SHIEK is behind the mass confusion so if they change CABINET OF PEOPLE INVOLVED then that takes attention of who's involved and whats going on! The Algerian gas explosion is all part of Blind Shiek & MB! The trrist want him released! THIS IS VERY BIG & GOVERMENT IS COVERING IT UP! THE SHEIK HAS BEEN IN US PRISION FOR 24 years he is 74 ,he gets 1 (15) minute phone call a month!

I supported Hillary during her presidential bid. I still have the yard posters and bumper stickers. Overall, she's done a great job, however, she should forget about 2016 due to this coverup BS. I was hoping for a little more truth.

Reading most of the comments from those on the left, one thing is clear; no fouled up operation or whiffs of crony capitalism or funding irregularities, etc. are ever to be investigated. Every Obama adminstration explanation must be taken at face value and is not to be questioned.

Does anyone else see that as a dangerous trend? Not that anything has been proven to be illegal. That's not the point. But since when is any politician of any party to be so trusted that nothing is worth investigating no matter how it looks? My concern isn't over some nefarious plot by Obama. My worry is that there will be a politician some place, some day, that will abuse that blind trust from the left...or the right for that matter.

Visit Bush on this concern. No problem. But look at two proven abuses. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that justified widening the Viet Nam war and Watergate. Dem and Republican scandals.

And look at recent scandals involving congressmen. Wiener and (there's a Repub, can't think of the name, feel free to name one because there is more than one). These yahoos thought they could get away with their idiocy because they felt their followers would automatically blame the other side. And, until there was undeniable proof, their followers did blindly absolve them of sins.

Now...these indiscretions were relatively small. However, how soon before some blind follower of the next Dem prez (or Repub) says that they don't care how corrupt he or she is, I will let them do whatever they want?

I don't think that is a fair assessment. Both sides have folks that will support their side to the bitter end. But this blind trust isn't universal to either party. Or at least it shouldn't be.

More to the point, we shouldn't have politicians who have those positions. If you blindly vote for either party, if you blindly vote for any bill, you should NOT be involved in politics.

Democrats are not for the most part, simply giving anyone a pass. However, when you say that your stated goal is to defeat someone, when you have investigation after investigation that show nothing, you wind up with crying wolf syndrome.

The same republicans that were screaming about Solyndra took stimulus money for their own donors. The same republicans that were screaming about Fast and Furious weren't concerned that this also occurred years earlier. Don't you get the feeling that crying foul while doing the exact same thing is kinda funny?

Why GOP? You never questioned Bush or Cheney about the phony reasons for heading into Iraq. Get the eff over this. It was a tragedy, but we've had much larger at home since them that you folks don't seem to care about (read Newtown and GUNS)!

In other words, ghostie, unless you protested Bush to your satisfaction, everything Obama does is to be overlooked and never investigated? What would it take for you to be outraged? Legitimate question. Is there anything Obama could do that you wouldn't blindly follow? Say...rendition? Say...tapping overseas phone calls? Both of which were started under Bush and continued today. So. If somebody is taken in the middle of the night at this time you are okay with it but 6 years ago it was an outrage?

She's gonna mop up the floor with them because they're gonna underestimate her. She has been dragged through everything the GOP could throw at a woman, everything a man can throw at a woman, everything politics can throw at a woman and she became SOS and is in a position to be the first female prez.

You're forgetting that Palin was borderline retarded. That played a role in her downfall as well. Seriously, since we're arguing from facts here.

January 23, 2013 at 9:19 am |

BurntFur

No, Palin whined and cried foul when she couldn't cope with the extremely easy questions she was asked. She didn't put up with anything. Liberals have nothing to do with this, you just want to call names to distract from the comment above, which adds credence to it.

January 23, 2013 at 9:24 am |

ghostriter

Palin had to handle tough questions like what she reads.

Isn't Fox the most watched cable news network? Why do you guys care so much about the liberal media? You have your own. People will choose which to watch and what to believe. Don't be mad that folks aren't really feeling you guys.

January 23, 2013 at 9:54 am |

meh

I find it funny because every person that posted a comment on here really don't care about the people who died, they only cared about their political position and for their love/hate of hiliary clinton and this current administration. If everyone stop trying to be holier than thy and be all honest with themselves, the reason for this all political/personal gain for this grilling and they don't really give a rat @ss about the people that die. Same can be said about any person that dies that we don't know, we give sympathy but in the end of the day we really don't care what others go through since it's sometimes hard enough living our own lives to really care what strangers do or don't do with theres.

People that are complaing about the government lying and cover-ups, guess what the government have always and will be continue to do this no matter if its a Republican, Democrat or Indepented. No matter who is in office there will always be someone hating, whiny, name calling the government because you can't satisf everyone in this country because everyone will find something to complain about even if that person is perfect, they'll find fault. People in the US are just whiny about everything and no matter who in office people will always find a reason to complain.

and claiming that no one cares about those that died as a blanket statement against everyone isn't the ultimate in whining? Of course people care that innocent people die. However, one political group tried to capitalize on the tragedy and use it as a wedge during an election. It ilicits a response. It demands one. Rigidly refusing to be objective, like you are doing here, is far worse than whining.

Clinton will be fine. The desperate, goofy right-wing BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI blah, blah, blah conspiracy has already been proven to false. So there was some confusion about an attack on our embassy. It's a CONSPIRACY!!!!!

Exactly. These are foreign posts. They might as well be on Mars. You just can't micromanage every little facet of governance. Something WILL slip by. It does not matter who is in charge. Terrorists are like mice or rats. They look for tiny holes in the system, chinks in the armour, to squeeze through. It is the way of things. This examination is necessary to plug the newly found rat hole. So Stevens requested more security. Well, our government is filled to the brim with people that want more for their offices or projects, while certain portions of Congress are screaming loudly to cut back in every way possible. And continue to scream bloody murder when something very bad comes from folloowing their lead. As for Stevens & the other victims. HELLO! They are in a foreign land. It wasn't a mission to the French Riviera. There are dangers that confront many of our missions abroad. Sadly, it is almost a routine occurance, but predicting when, or if, it will blow up in our faces is well nigh impossible to predict. Again, plug the darn hole, then Congress should plug it's own hole, and get back to fixing our economy, (or ruining it further).

No it's not a conspiracy, I bet you blame the GOP if it was your mother that died there. When a liberal screws up they call it GOP conspiracy and when GOP screws up they are evil. Mmmm the Liberal Sect are Saints and make no mistakes. Love to see Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, a retard for President 2016. I am sure that the GOP wil be banned in the USA. We just need 1 political party, liberals.

BENGHAZI WAS SET UP BY THE BLIND SHEIK HE'S BEHIND THIS AND ALL THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF KNOW IT & THE ALGERIAN HOSTAGE CRISIS ALSO THE BLIND SHEIK AND SOME MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD VISITED NY THIS SUMMER IN HOPES FOR HIS RELEASE HE IS 74 ! HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE 1992 NYWT SITUATION THAT KILLED 60 AND INJURED 1000! THIS IS WHO ABL WORKED FOR!

Sure blame the bilnd man that is in prison, and the liberals are too scared to tell Morsi that the man will die in prison. I won't be surprised that Morsi will d some damage to the United States. Liberals say How could it be? The Muslim Brotherhood are our friends and not terrorist. Liberals wishy washy hypocritical parasite of America.

Read a very good article in the NYT regarding foreign embassy workers and the fine line they have to walk. One cannot have diplomacy from behind brick walls and barbed wire. Many of the workers and the families interviewed still believe that and do not want this episode to cloud diplomacy and drive us behind the walls.

How are the Republican Senators going to reply to the law that was passed during George H. W. Bush's administration that requires the State Department to use the Lowest Bidder for local security guards at Embassies, Consulates and Missions? Notice, that law REQUIRES, not suggests or recommends. They are not allowed to follow any other criteria. That being the case, the every one of those facilities is at risk.

Joe, it is always heartening to know that, regardless of the situation, negative results will always be the fault of George W. Bush. When Blackwater was ever used in any kind of similar situation there were always cries of foul because they weren't the lowest bidder or they were the only bidder. Now that the use of the lowest bidder and W can be blamed for Benghazi, well...lowest bidders are terrible!

Having a bad day, Joe? Must be W's. Dog bites you? Must be W's fault. Bad hair day? Must be W's fault. Thankfully we have him to blame for all the ills that have befallen the United States since January of 2009.

What a bunch of nonsense. How about further congressional hearings into why and how we went to war in Iraq? That resulted in over 5,000 American deaths and countless injuries. But instead we just get more grandstanding by congressional buffoons. Pathetic.

As with the President; "the Buck Stops Here". I am not certain if Clinton would have heard about every request for more security in every embassy as it is likely every embassy was requesting more & better security. However since Libya was such a hot spot you would think Libya would be in every briefing she received. She would also have reason to expect that the Head of Embassy Security (a long term employee) would be dealing with the issue. Ultimately Clinton is responsible for what happens in the State Dept; including the security of personnel. She is leaving as Sec. of State; so she needs to step up and take "ultimate responsibility"; the Head of Embassy Security has already resigned over this.

Maybe this wouldn't have happened if Libya passed an assault weapons ban... it was just like Newtown... only 1/7th as many people died and none of them were in 1st grade. Needless to say, heads will roll over that, too. What did the Republicans know and when did they know it!? Ridiculous political theater. Get back to work, idiots.

I'm glad the GOP has so much free time to continue asking about an event from September in which almost every person involved has been grilled. Don't mind the fiscal situation in the US. Let's continue pushing this. Stop trying to bring Obama down and get your frickin job done. And the same goes for the Dems. Stop trying to make Congress look bad and focus on what you CAN do, not what you can't.

Why does she even bother? Folks on the right wing can't even remember the Ambassador's name any more, but they're still screaming for Democrat blood–just because it's Democrat. I sure didn't hear any of this indignation from them when our embassies and outposts were attacked under Bush. Bunch'a hypocrites, all.

It was Christopher Stevens. Now, who was Brian Terry? Don't care do you? How about the names of the other three who died that day? Do you even care that they died AFTER some coward told them to stand down? Do you even care about the name of the coward?

What about Bush's "Mission Accomplished" lie? He couldn't even deliver this lie from Iraqi soil, he told this lie while aboard an aircraft carrier well out of harms way! Bush was an idiot, managed and handled by powerful "interests" outside of our government (many of Cheney's friends). Today, neither Bush nor Cheney dare appear or speak publicly. Neither would dare endorse Romney, wonder why?

Rock, let us assume Bush and Cheney lied. That they were the MOST evil people to ever walk on the earth. Now, how does that absolve anyone of any responsibility for what happened to Stevens and the others?

Bush and Cheney are evil, evil, evil. Their sins don't justify the sins of others.

Because the congress at the time realized they had more important things to do. Something this bunch of buffoons needs to realize. They're so intent on hoping to make clinton look bad and trying again to introduce personhood amendments to worry sbout anything of real importance.

mkjp, are you so ignorant of the machinations of our government that you don't realize that Congress has time to pass meaningless bills declaring things like "National Get a Haircut Day"? I think they have all the time they need. They passed the cliff bill in 5 minutes.

Hope Mrs.Clinton give to us her acknowledge openly of what really happened, The reason I respect her truly because all the issues on her life she is very strong woman.
The people responsible, who suppose to be fired only they been reassigned to other positions, my question is why ?.

Ambassador Stevens was moving arms into the hands of Libyan rebels and some into Egypt,he was doing the State departments dirty work and was a target for getting taken as a hostage in order to free some rebels in custody. Of course Clinton knows the whole story but the media will never get it because of security for the state department .Now much of the secrets died ominously with Stevens having the 16 man special forces protection he had only a few weeks before 9/11 pulled out ,reluctantly from Bengazi. The state department obviously knew he would never live to talk.

A thorough grilling is entirely appropriate. Far too many lies and a coverup about Benghazi by the White House and State Department in the weeks leading up to the November election. The far left media was complicit too by refusing to probe into the situation. Perhaps avoiding an Obama re-election loss.

Right, plus not only did Clinton also talk about Iraq's WMD's, but so did the leaders of major European countries. An informer at the time testified that the WMD's were moved to Syria. No one ever took that seriously (no dems, that is), and today no dems are asking where Syria got its WMD's that it recently threatened to use on its own people. So THERE!

January 23, 2013 at 8:20 am |

n222s

Remind me again of when it was Pres. Obama was questioned before congress for lying about the video? Then for ignoring Al Quaeda links to things such as Ft. Hood that caused other deaths? How about responsibility for Fast and Furious. Where was the Dem wrath then? Oh wait...

A grilling by the GOP? Might I suggest to the GOP that Mrs.Clinton is admired by Democrats and Republicans. Choose your words wisely. 2016 will be her year and could be the downfall of those who choose to inflame her admirers.

This will turn into nothing but a politically debate to further some republicans future agenda's. Some on this committee might be running against Clinton if she decides to throw her hat into the ring. What better way to get a head start on her if they can show she is not Presidential material. Benghazi will be secondary

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Search Security Clearance

Share this blog

About this blog

CNN's Security Clearance examines national and global security, terrorism and intelligence, as well as the economic, military, political and diplomatic effects of it around the globe, with contributions from CNN's national security team in Washington and CNN journalists around the world.